Christopher Rufo (click here for a bio) has put his two cents into the collection plate of anti-CRT articles. His name has appeared in a blog article here before when I wrote on a story about Disney. Chris Rufo had provide short film clips from Disney executives that tried to support the writer's contention about Disney and what they were trying to do to children. Anyway, Rufo is an activist and he directs documentary films and that is worth noting considering what will be pointed out here in the article being reviewed.
Last year, Rufo wrote an article criticizing CRT which was posted on the Hillsdale College website. In that article, Rufo both refuted CRT and gave advice on how to oppose it (click here for the article). And considering Rufo's resume on directing documentary films and his positions at conservative think-tank organizations, his article has some significant errors.
The basic thrust of Rufo's article is that because CRT is a Marxist venture, it is out to destroy Capitalism and the American way of life and thus it must not only be rejected, but vigorously opposed. Rufo cites some examples of life-as-we-know-it-threaten proposals made by CRT proponents. He first claims that Cheryl Harris has called for 'suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.' Rufo doesn't provide the source for his claim here. The statement might refer to statements made in a Harvard article written by Harris called Whiteness As Property. In that article, Harris refers to Whiteness of property because of the expected value in terms of how one will be treated.1 We should note that Marx addressed property the way he did because of the power that property gave the person who who owned it. I didn't see Rufo's claim verified though she did talk about 'distributive justice.' In talking about distributive justice, she said the following (click here for the source):
Distributive justice as a matter of equal protection requires that individuals receive that share of the benefits they would have secured in the absence of racism.
At least one conservative reacted to this statement as being in favor of black superiority. But later on in the Harvard article, Harris also wrote that she has not intention of promoting black superiority. In fact, she sees Affirmative Action as being based on 'antisubordination' (click here for the same source as above).
Rufo also claims that Ibram X. Kendi's has called for some new independent department that would have the power to eliminate any law from any level of government and curb the speech of political leaders according to anti-racist guidelines. And that such a department would not be accountable to the voters. Again, Rufo provides no source that would give evidence to his claim. Rufo's description of Kendi's idea wrongly adds much to what Kendi was proposing (click here). Kendi claims that his concept of of a department that would evaluate legislation would benefit people of all races, not just blacks (click here). In addition, Kendi compared the kind of work that he wants this department to do with what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does. Here we should note that the CBO acts in an advisory role only. Finally, the creation of the kind of department that Rufo says Kendi wants is Constitutionally impossible without revising The Constitution. Revising The Constitution is not a quick and easy job.
Rufo also mentions Kendi's opposition to Capitalism. But Rufo doesn't mention why Kendi oppose Capitalism. Kendi's reason can be found in an interview he took part in with hosts from the Democracy Now program (click here for the source and proceed to the 13:40 mark). He states that from the beginning of America's history, Capitalism and racism have been so intertwined that they have become inseparable. And while Rufo focuses on Kendi's view of Capitalism, he forgets some of what Martin Luther King Jr. said about Marxism and Capitalism as well as how King saw racism and economic exploitation as being inseparable (click here, start with pg 92, and there, forward to the 21:04 mark of the interview ). And certainly, the history of Capitalism in our nation is replete with instances of economic exploitation.
Rufo continues with his warnings by claiming that CRT is calling for Marxist revolutionary changes in America that would violate what we have become accustomed to here such as equality under the law, individual rights, freedom of speech, and federalism. But one has to ask Rufo if opposing what CRT wants to do implies that systemic racism no longer exists in America. That point will be addressed later.
Rufo then attempts to describe how CRT will accomplish its goals. But to do so, he has already identified from where CRT came. Rufo claims that CRT comes from Marxism and started in the 1990s. And though he doesn't say 'Marxism alone,' he mentions not other source for CRT.
But there are problem with Rufo's description of CRT's origins. First, CRT started in 1989, if not earlier as will be referenced later (click here) and emerged from Critical Legal Studies (CLS). CLS did have its roots in Neo-Marxism via Critical Theory. But CRT has differences with CLS. In addition, it can be very well viewed as a continuation of the work started by the Civil Rights Movement especially the part that was under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. Rufo neglects this fact.
Evidence of the ties between CRT and the work of Martin Luther King Jr. can be seen in the works of Anthony Cook and Kimberlé Crenshaw. While Cook writes explicitly about King and what he sought to do, A Crenshaw 1988 article criticizes Critical Legal Studies, from which CRT emerged, and Reagan's colorblind approach to addressing racism2. Reagan and the conservative approach to racism had declared that the legal battle against racism ended in the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. And thus, the conservative battle against racism could only be seen in the confrontation of racism practiced by individuals.
In the 1967 King video previously cited, King spoke about his earlier work as being a struggle for dignity. Then King went on to say that the struggle he and others are involved in are now addressing 'genuine equality' (go to the 12:30 mark of that video). And what King had in mind there was for economic equality between blacks and whites which stands in sharp contrast to the decades-long growing wealth disparity both between the races and between the classes. In her article, Crenshaw contrasts the Reagan's colorblind approach that revolves around 'equality as process' vs. 'equality as result.' Crenshaw's view was that without equality as result, there is not proof of equality as process.
In addition, the Reagan and conservative view assumed that structural racism ended with the passing of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of the mid 1960s. The racist practices that continued after the passing of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts include Redlining, racial disparity practiced by law enforcement and seen in the Judicial System (see Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow), environmental racism (click here), racial discrimination in employment, and voter restriction laws that affect black voters more than white voters. And, btw, I know that I am leaving out some other areas in which structural racism is practiced.
I could continue with Rufo's article but there are a few main observations to make. First, Rufo's descriptions of both Marxism and CRT portray both as monoliths. Rufo does not acknowledge what Dr. Robert Romero has pointed out is that CRT has branched out with different teachings in CRT which sometimes conflict with other teachings. In addition, CRT did not emerge in a centralized way. Rather it is a 'diverse field' of study that looks at the role racism played in the development of US laws and policies. In addition, Romero gives specific examples of how Christian faith influenced CRT (click here for source). Then again, we should remember that CRT is, in part, a continuation of the work of Martin Luther King Jr. which points to another example of Christian faith influencing CRT.
Likewise, Rufo's describes Marxism as if it was monolithic goes against history and the present. Rufo describes Marx as believing in revolution to solve the oppression of workers by the bourgeoisie. He also seems to think that the regimes in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, China, and Cuba give a whole picture of what Marxism in practice was all about.
We should note that not all socialists have promoted revolution. For example, when the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks met in a soviet, or committee, meeting, the Mensheviks walked out in protest against the Bolshevik desire for revolution because Mensheviks were stagists. That is that the change of Russia's economy back then should be gradual. Members of other socialist parties in Russia walked out of the Duma, Russia's legislative body, in protest against the coup that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had orchestrated. And for some who initially supported the Bolshevik take over of the government, there were the Kronstadt sailors who later on fought the Bolsheviks, some to their death, because the Bolsheviks did not return power to the people.
What Lenin and the Bolsheviks created and was imitated by others was challenged by some other Marxists. For example, Rosa Luxemburg described Lenin's regime as a bourgeois dictatorship rather than a proletariat dictatorship (click here for the source). She said that not because of any participation by Russian capitalists. She said that because Lenin's regime was organized in a top-down fashion used by the bourgeoisie in their businesses. The proletariat dictatorship would employ a bottom-up organization. We should note here that Luxemburg did cut Lenin some slack because of the fighting that was occurring at that time. But it shows that Lenin's regime was not as Marxist as many supposed. And that would put other so called Marxist regimes in question.
We should also note that Lenin denigrated Marxist Leftists who challenged him by calling them 'infantile.' And so there was a division between how Lenin ruled and what those Marxists on the Left believed.
We should also note some else about Marx especially regarding his insistence on the abolition of private property (click here for the source):
Is not private property abolished in idea if the non-property owner has become the legislator for the property owner? The property qualification for the suffrage is the last political form of giving recognition to private property.
Nevertheless, the political annulment of private property not only fails to abolish private property but even presupposes it. The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state.
The monolithic way that Rufo has portrayed Marxism and CRT could never account for the above alternative way that Marx described how the abolition of private property could work because the only way he has seen such an abolition implemented is through what was done in the Soviet Union, China, and so on. Also, Rufo may not see the goal in Marx's proposed abolition of private property. The purpose of Marx's proposed abolition of private properties was not to expand the powers of the state. Rather, it was to level the playing field for non-property owners with all property owners so that there is equality between them. That is because Marx so strongly associated property with political power.
Today, Marxists are still made up from a diverse group with some emphasizing political ideology while others promoted workers control of production.
Also, while Rufo noted that the Marxist dream of workers taking control over industry did not materialize, he overlooks the violent history America's labor unions and how they gained certain employment rights and benefits for their workers against the strong wishes and actions of their employers. Some of those unions leaned very heavily toward the Left. The violence often was initiated by owners used proxies or the police forces to silence unions, especially their leaders.
Besides his monolithic portrayals of CRT and Marxism, Rufo overlooks a vital part of CRT. Rufo fails to consider whether CRT adequately describes how blacks experience racism. Part of his failure is because Rufo so concentrated on some solutions proposed by CRT proponents. But it might also be because Rufo seems to have the conservative view of racism in America. That view says that the Civil Rights Movement ended all systemic racism in the US by the mid 1960s. That doesn't mean that conservative believe that racism is dead here. It just means that they believe that racism exists on an individual basis only.
What CRT does is to redefine racism according to how it is experienced by many blacks. So the value of CRT should first be measured in how well it describes black experience with racism in this nation. While whites might experience racism in terms of personal prejudice, CRT claims that blacks experience racism through both personal prejudice and by society because of the systemic racism still exists in our nation. Some of the writings of Tim Keller, a conservative minister and leader from the Reformed tradition, acknowledges the existence of systemic racism. And he does that even though he is not a fan of CRT.
The fact that there are religiously conservative Christians who recognize the systemic racism that still exists in our nation with some of them, such as Jemar Tisby, Robert Romero and some of the people Romero mentioned in a video previously cited shows that the battle over CRT should not be fought over religious lines lest Christians take verbal aim at fellow believers for whom Christ died. This recognition that there are Christians who recognize the contributions of CRT as well as those, like Rufo, who totally oppose even the existence of CRT goes against what seems to be an unspoken assumption by Rufo about the relationship between Christianity and CRT. Rufo's beliefs about racism in this nation seems to be in agreement what the Reagan Administration and conservatives like Thomas Sowell believe.
And perhaps because of Rufo's beliefs about the current state of racism here, he has failed to adequately portray CRT, which he seems to regard as an enemy of the US, But we might want to ask Rufo and other conservatives about the state of racism in our nation prior to what he believes was its eradication here. For even here, there seems to be a wide disparity between what Rufo acknowledges by his focus on slavery and CRT's claim about the profundity and pervasiveness of the belief in white supremacy by many Americans which existed since the European settling of this nation. An example of that disparity can be found in Rufo's failure to mention the plight of Native Americans when discussing CRT. Some of the CRT promoters I've read also include how white supremacy affected the lives of Native Americans.
We should make one other point here. Toward the end of the article, Rufo seems to brag about his efforts to silence CRT and stop it from being taught in various places like at the workplace and at schools. He says that he does that in part to defend free speech. How ironic.
References
1. Whiteness As Property, by Cheryl Harris, from a Harvard Article, Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement, pg 276-291, The New Press, 1995.
2. Race, Reform, And Retrenchment: Transformation And Legitimation In Anti-Discrimination Law, by Kimberlé Crenshaw, Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement, pg 103-122, The New Press, 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment